The Dirty Independence Question

[DomDom1984]

I never said we could be fast tracked into the EU. I agreed on fast tracking the referendum based on the feeling towards the current government. There's a pretty big feeling of "Scotland never voted for this government". The SNP will be looking to capitalise on that.

[eFestivals]

I never said we could be fast tracked into the EU. I agreed on fast tracking the referendum based on the feeling towards the current government. There's a pretty big feeling of "Scotland never voted for this government". The SNP will be looking to capitalise on that.

ahh, sorry. misunderstood.

Tho the referendum hasn't been fast-tracked, it's been the exact opposite: slow-tracked.

Which does make you wonder how committed to independence the leader of the SNP is.

[Buff124]

Europe

Hah, you got me lured in again - but I'm not looking for an argument. At the risk of repeating myself (and I might as well as everything above is a repeat), I just want to present some evidence on the EU question.

Below are extracts from Graham Avery's report to the Her Majesty's Government in September 2012, which was of course ignored as it presumably didn't (and still doesn't) fit HM Govt's narrative.

Questions to ask (yourself, not me). Is it credible ? Does it make sense ?

Do you think the EU supports the principle of European countries being members of their organisation ?

========================================

8. From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership.

======================================

11. As in the case of German reunification*, the EU would adopt a simplified procedure under which the Commission would be asked to conduct exploratory talks with Edinburgh, London and other capitals, and submit proposals. Although an intergovernmental conference would be needed, it would not be of the kind that handles accession negotiations with non-member countries. A protracted accession procedure of that type, with detailed scrutiny of 35 chapters of the EU’s acquis, would not be necessary in the case of Scotland, which has consistently applied the EU’s policies and legislation for 40 years.

*German reunification involved 16 million people becoming EU citizens
=============================

13. ....it remains to be seen what might be requested by Scottish representatives concerning the euro or the Schengen area of free movement of persons. Without embarking here on a discussion of the implications for Scotland of these policies, we may note that although new member states are required to accept them in principle, they do not become members of the eurozone or Schengen immediately on accession, and are not permitted to do so. Joining the euro or Schengen depends on a series of criteria that are examined in the years following accession.

==============================

14. Let us turn now to the secondary legislation. Although a large number of technical adaptations would be needed in order for Scotland to implement EU law, the vast majority of these would be uncontroversial since they would be based on the existing situation. In respect of EU policies and legislation, Scotland’s citizens have a legitimate expectation of the maintenance of the status quo in terms of economic and social conditions.

==================================

15. ...again, it remains to be seen whether Scottish representatives would request changes in the application of EU rules and policies, for example the fisheries policy or payments into the EU budget. In general one would expect these matters to be solved on a temporary basis by means of a roll-over mutatis mutandis of existing arrangements for the U.K. until the relevant EU rules come up for revision

================================
Biographical note

Graham Avery is Senior Member of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the European Commission. He has given evidence on a number of occasions to Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords

In the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in London (1965-72) he headed the unit responsible for negotiations for accession to the EC, and later (1976) served as Private Secretary to two Ministers. In the European Commission in Brussels (1973-2006) he worked in agricultural policy, foreign affairs, and the cabinets of the President and other Commissioners, and took part in successive negotiations that enlarged the EU to 27 members. His last post was as Director for Strategy, Coordination and Analysis in the Directorate General for External Relations.

He has been Fellow at the Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute, Florence, Visiting Professor at the College of Europe, and Secretary General of the Trans European Policy Studies Association

[eFestivals]

Below are extracts from Graham Avery's report to the Her Majesty's Government in September 2012,

I'm guessing this is as selectively chosen as so much else? I'm particularly loving the "nobel prize winning economist" ... that now has a job for iScotland because3 of his ruined rep as an economist after having got the Greece situation both financially and politically wrong.

8. From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership.

This is horseshit!!

Scotland is not in the EU.

There are no "rights as European citizens". There are only rights as citizens of a member state. And as it happens, we already know that no one in Scotland will be losing them, because they'll still be able to use those rights via their shared Scottish/rUK nationality.

If they want to be in the EU - THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE EU'S RULES!!!

What is inconceivable is that the people of Scotland can't understand that the EU just can't make up some new rules and wave Scotland thru.

They can make up some new rules, but they they have to get every member country to agree to them, then ratify them thru their own parliaments, and in many cases that requires a referendum beforehand.

There is no alternative to the rules - either the rules as they exist now, or new rules that might come to exist (after a period of time, as reality will require).

11. As in the case of German reunification*, the EU would adopt a simplified procedure under which the Commission would be asked to conduct exploratory talks with Edinburgh, London and other capitals, and submit proposals. Although an intergovernmental conference would be needed, it would not be of the kind that handles accession negotiations with non-member countries. A protracted accession procedure of that type, with detailed scrutiny of 35 chapters of the EU’s acquis, would not be necessary in the case of Scotland, which has consistently applied the EU’s policies and legislation for 40 years.

More horseshit.

East Germany was being incorporated into an already-member state, and where that member state's constitution had always included the territory of East Germany. So all of the EU's everything already formally included a Germany with its re-united Eastern parts.

Everything is opposite with Scotland.

The accession of a new member state dilutes the shared sovereignty of member states that's held within the EU by treaty - and so DOES require the normal accession procedures. You know that sovereignty thing you're so desperate to have? Guess what? So are those 28 member countries.

13. ....it remains to be seen what might be requested by Scottish representatives concerning the euro or the Schengen area of free movement of persons. Without embarking here on a discussion of the implications for Scotland of these policies, we may note that although new member states are required to accept them in principle, they do not become members of the eurozone or Schengen immediately on accession, and are not permitted to do so. Joining the euro or Schengen depends on a series of criteria that are examined in the years following accession.

ahhhh, the rules get recognised at last!

It's good to see those rules accepted. It's good to see Scotland accept where they're going to have to agree to go (unless the EU rules are changed, which will slow down Scotland's entry).

And, given the rules that Scotland will have agreed to, those rules will have consequences onto Scotland.

14. Let us turn now to the secondary legislation. Although a large number of technical adaptations would be needed in order for Scotland to implement EU law, the vast majority of these would be uncontroversial since they would be based on the existing situation. In respect of EU policies and legislation, Scotland’s citizens have a legitimate expectation of the maintenance of the status quo in terms of economic and social conditions.

"legitimate expectations" is not legal speak, and means naff all. It's merely recognising that people in Scotland would be pissed off to be outside the EU.

If they don't want to be outside the EU, they'll need to find a way of staying in (which the current unrealistic hopes don't do). It's Scotland's choice that would put Scotland outside, it's not the EU deciding to expel Scotland.

Scotland is able to read the EU rulebook and see they'll be outside by those rules.

15. ...again, it remains to be seen whether Scottish representatives would request changes in the application of EU rules and policies, for example the fisheries policy or payments into the EU budget. In general one would expect these matters to be solved on a temporary basis by means of a roll-over mutatis mutandis of existing arrangements for the U.K. until the relevant EU rules come up for revision

More horseshit.

Scotland has spent the last year boasting about how much richer it is than the UK.

Putting aside the fact that that is Scotland essentially asking for the rUK to keep funding it (laughable in itself), those other member states are not going to pass up the money from that richer Scotland that would be due to them under EU rules.

You'd think that such a lovely Fellow might have better grasp of sovereignty, treaties and law thah this guy does. But hey, we all love lashings of jam even in our deepest fantasies.

Edited March 24, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

I take that, in your opinion, Graham Avery's advice fails the first question :

'Is it credible?'

After all, he only worked in the European Commission from 1973 to 2006, and wrote the accession treaties of 14 out of the 28 current member states.

Do you think those 14 countries would find his evidence credible ?

At times I remember why this discussion thread is a sub-heading of the Wibble forum.

[Buff124]

...and I had better post the link to the evidence , as there's a wee hint from you I'm quoting selectively.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm

Never seem to see many links from your good self, Neil. Not that it matters.

[Buff124]

...and for the avoidance of doubt, Mr Avery is not a Scot. Born in Wales in 1943.

Link : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afet/dv/201/201113/20111301cvavery_en.pdf

Quote: "He led the task force which made the Commission’s report to the European Council in 1992 on Europe and the Challenge of Enlargement, coordinated its Opinions in 1997 on the applications for membership by countries of Central and Eastern Europe and contributed to the report Agenda 2000. He was author of the report Policies for an Enlarged Union in 2001, and piloted the report Enlarging the European Union presented to the Commission by Wim Kok in 2003."

Why would anyone would believe a word of what he says about European accession ?

Edited March 24, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

I take that, in your opinion, Graham Avery's advice fails the first question :

'Is it credible?'

Less about the credible, and more about the yes campaign massively warping his words to suggest something he didn't say.

He's actually complained about how the yes campaign have mis-used his words - but no doubt the unbiased yes campaign has 'forgotten' to tell you about that while selectively telling you of just some of his words.

Oh dear.

----

That aside, he doesn't say "iScotland will not be outside the EU" at any point. He merely says that it would be unfortunate and going against the EU's wider aims, that's all.

In his more recent words that the yes campaign should be listening to (they were in scottish newspapers before you posted these words, why haven't you read them? ), he says that for iScotland to stay within the EU will require treaty changes *IF* it's possible to get all 28 countries to agree them, but then doesn't mention how long those might take (tho history can inform us of that).

---------------

Given that Avery is saying that the yes campaign is taking the piss with mis-use of his words, perhaps you should stop quoting them and using them to try and justify the yes campaign's factual untruths?

-------

Any more Salmond myths you'd like knocked down?

Edited March 25, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Never seem to see many links from your good self, Neil. Not that it matters.

I can go off and find you the links, but like all yes campaigners you'll merely say it's tory/english bullshit bluster and bullying, while at the same time you'll selectively pick any words that you think support yes, exactly as has happened with Avery.

Yes, it's true. Only the yes campaign has access to the real facts. Disagreeable facts from anywhere else are not facts, they're bullshit and part of project fear.

If you want to find Avery tell you the yes campaign is wrong about the EU, go read some recent Scottish newspapers.

If you're working to the normal yes campaign plans, your next post will be about how that newspaper and Avery is part of project fear.

Edited March 25, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

This is the only recent link I can find chief...is there something I've missed, in the Daily Heil or the Torygraph perhaps ?

"Avery claims the Yes and No camps both mislead. He writes: "I realised some time ago that the EU is used in the Scottish debate in a misleading way, with 'unionists' presenting the EU as a major handicap to independence, and 'independentists' adopting a simplistic approach to the EU."

Avery argues it would be "common sense" for Scotland to join the EU the day it becomes legally independent [March 2016], and that it would not be in the EU's interests to force Scots out of the union then make Scotland reapply for membership.

As Avery's position is often cited approvingly by the SNP, the Welsh-born expert has been perceived as a supporter of independence. However, Avery insists he is neutral."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/top-euro-official-scotland-will-add-clout-once-in-eu.23760619

[Buff124]

I refer to the 2nd question

"Does it make sense?"

[eFestivals]

This is the only recent link I can find

That's a version of it yeah - that the nats are taking a simplistic view

ie: they're making his words into something he didn't say.

it would not be in the EU's interests to force Scots out of the union then make Scotland reapply for membership.

that's merely a statement of common sense. It's not EU policy or the EU entry rules.

iScotland's problem is what the EU policies and rules are. If you read more of Avery's words you can see him mention treaty changes are needed, and all of his theoretical "this could happen" words have no timescales applied to them (while iScotland is working to an immovable deadline, so the yes campaign say).

Cooking Avery's words up into "iScotland will stay within the EU" as the yes campaign have done is horseshit. It's trying to create an independent Scotland via a fraud upon it's people.

[eFestivals]

I stumbled across another thing within the yes campaign's white paper yesterday, where the nat's again recognise that union has better policies for Scotland than independence has (to go with the currency union, no border posts, and a financial sector).....

An independent Scotland wishes to keep its universities within the UK's research group.

That all sounds very sensible until you realise it also wants the rUK to be financially supporting the research within Scottish universities (the unis currently get 13% of the research money, for around 9% of taxation paid by Scotland).

Losing around 50% of the research funding for Scottish unis will be a big big hit on them.

No doubt it'll be bullying by rUK for rUK money to be spent within rUK institutions.

[OneLittleFish]

Salmond is doing a rather good job of taking the 'in' out of 'independence'.

[eFestivals]

Salmond is doing a rather good job of taking the 'in' out of 'independence'.

yep ... Scotland wants to be dependent on itself, apart from:-

1. all trade policy

2. all fiscal policy

3. all defence policy

4. all immigration policy

5. uni research

... with more to be added as they are discovered but those who will vote yes have failed to notice any of them.

Cos I keep on reading from people who say they've vote yes how there's not a single thing that;s positive about a union.

Vote yes if you want to, but at least be smart enough to admit what you're voting for.

[lost]

Noticed this is the paper whilst I was on holiday this week:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shetland-orkney-and-the-outer-hebrides-demand-independence-referendums-of-their-own-if-scotland-votes-yes-9217514.html

Scottish isles could vote on independence from Scotland and take 67% of the oil with them.

[eFestivals]

Noticed this is the paper whilst I was on holiday this week:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shetland-orkney-and-the-outer-hebrides-demand-independence-referendums-of-their-own-if-scotland-votes-yes-9217514.html

Scottish isles could vote on independence from Scotland and take 67% of the oil with them.

that really is a 'project fear' story. There's no real support for the idea, I believe.

But it is a scenario that could happen in theory and would totally screw iScotland if it did.

It would be very amusing to hear Salmond act just like Westminster now if it did happen, because like everyone on this issue, it's about self determination on the terms he states, not on what people might determine for themselves.

[LJS]

I have spent the last couple of days trawling through this debate & I must say there has some interesting stuff in it & you will be thrilled to know that I am now going to add my tuppence / 2 cents / 2 scones* worth to the debate.

I shall be voting yes & here's why ....

I am Scottish. I believe Scotland is a nation. I believe as a nation we should govern ourselves.

easy!

I may elaborate on this in future posts as well as sharing my wisdom on currency union, the Eu & the Krankies.

*if we can't have the pound or the euro I believe the Scottish currency should be the scone or alternatively the Tunnock's Teacake. It may require a second referendum for this important decision.

[LJS]

now there's been a lot of stuff about the failings in the SNP's "white paper" (which I haven't read)

well funnily enough, I was about to say it is the only "blueprint" for a post independence Scotland but it isn't - the Greens have one which does make interesting reading but sadly few will bother.

Not surprisingly the other main parties are not going to campaign for the status quo (down down deeper & down) whilst simultaneously outlining their vision of an independent Scotland.

However, should Scotland vote Yes they would presumably come up with one. And we would have a choice. And that's what democracy is about.

Similarly with Alex Salmond. The referendum is not about installing him as the Rab C Mugabe of Scotland. He is not a reason to vote NO any more than he is a reason to vote yes .

My personal opinion ...he's a politician so by definition he is flawed (there are honourable exceptions but like Tony Benn they are a dying breed) & has an inflated opinion of himself. However I think his gang have done a fair job (maybe 7.5 out of 10 ) of running what they are allowed to run in Scotland & certainly better than any Westminster PM in living memory.

Incidentally, although I am passionately pro Independence, I have no time for the "ye canny be truly Scottish if y'urr votin' Naw" nonsense.

We are all entitled to our opinion & I'm sure most folk are trying to sort out what they truly think is for the best!!

[LJS]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound

well, Mr Fish, currency union was probably next on my list & now you have brought it up, I will share my views.

Whatever the background to the decision, when the 3 main UK parties came out at the same time against currency union, it came across as a political decision to undermine Salmond & the yes campaign. Now that may be wrong but can you blame anyone who is a wee bit suspicious when Clegg Cameron & Milliband are all in harmony?

I am not going to pretend to be an expert but I am old enough to have spent British pounds in Dublin so I don't see how the idea is so ridiculous.

Leaving aside all the business arguments - millions of people cross the border between Scotland & England every year - to visit family , to attend sports events , to go to festivals etc.

Whether i am Scottish or English I would really like to think my government was trying to make this as easy as possible for me.

Whether this is accurate or not, the Perception in Scotland is that this has been an attempt to undermine the Yes campaign rather than a serious attempt to discuss the issue

O

[kaosmark2]

Whether this is accurate or not, the Perception in Scotland is that this has been an attempt to undermine the Yes campaign rather than a serious attempt to discuss the issue

I think there's been "bullying" "bullshit" "bulster" "bollocks" and any other b-word you can think is appropriate coming from both sides of the campaign. Both sides have looked to discredit the other rather than convince people of the validity of their position, a sad and common trend in modern politics regardless of country.

I do think that MOST (emphasis on not all) people who vote yes will be doing so out of misplaced selfish optimism, but it saddens me that such an important decision is coming to come down to who has the best double-speak rather than the best argument. I don't think Scottish independence will be good for either side, but I do think the nation has a right to decide it (similar to the possibility of UK leaving EU). The problem is, with both sides, the campaign for leaving is using scare tactics around "they're making decisions that screw you over", with the very false implication than they're not doing the same. UKIP/Tories/SNP all have policies that screw over their own electorate that they're prevented from making by the "unwanted controlling power" that is Westminster/Brussels. Fragmentation and isolation isn't a good thing for anyone. I'm in favour of further devolution (not to specifically Scotland, but to all UK regions, probably proportional to populatoin), but I don't think the "devolution where rUK gives disproportionate funds to Scotland" which is what we've sort of got atm is fair or sensible either.

[eFestivals]

now there's been a lot of stuff about the failings in the SNP's "white paper" (which I haven't read)

well funnily enough, I was about to say it is the only "blueprint" for a post independence Scotland but it isn't - the Greens have one which does make interesting reading but sadly few will bother.

Not surprisingly the other main parties are not going to campaign for the status quo (down down deeper & down) whilst simultaneously outlining their vision of an independent Scotland.

However, should Scotland vote Yes they would presumably come up with one. And we would have a choice. And that's what democracy is about.

I agree with all of that as valid and practical ideas, and what is likely to happen if Scotland votes yes.

But what it ignores is how the 'yes' is being sold in the first place to be getting to that point. The 'yes' is being sold on the basis of the white paper.

And, from comments I'm reading, while there's a good proportion who are considering things in a more abstract-but-real-world way like yourself, there's also plenty who basically see the referendum as the menu and the white paper as their dinner - and if they order the white paper, that's what they're getting to eat.

[LJS]

I agree with all of that as valid and practical ideas, and what is likely to happen if Scotland votes yes.

But what it ignores is how the 'yes' is being sold in the first place to be getting to that point. The 'yes' is being sold on the basis of the white paper.

And, from comments I'm reading, while there's a good proportion who are considering things in a more abstract-but-real-world way like yourself, there's also plenty who basically see the referendum as the menu and the white paper as their dinner - and if they order the white paper, that's what they're getting to eat.

if anyone is making their decision based on the propaganda of either the yes campaign or the Better Together campaign, their decision is based on a mixture of truth , lies, distortion, exaggeration & guesswork.

just like every election.

Edited March 29, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Whatever the background to the decision, when the 3 main UK parties came out at the same time against currency union, it came across as a political decision to undermine Salmond & the yes campaign. Now that may be wrong but can you blame anyone who is a wee bit suspicious when Clegg Cameron & Milliband are all in harmony?

They're in harmony with their statement about all of the debt being the UK's, too - which the yes side take as being an absolute irrefutable statement that none of the debt is Scotland's.

How come they're all 100% trust-able for one thing and the complete opposite for another?

This is where I find big issues with the yes campaign. The amount of selectivity that's happening which is then being presented as certain irrefutable fact makes so much of the yes campaign a bad joke.

If you were to step back from the Scottish independence question for a moment, you will find that there's been a concerted anti-currency union campaign in the UK for around 25 years, followed by the biggest financial crisis in history where big problems have been exposed in the working of a currency union of the type that iScotland is wanting.

For all of that 25 years the two biggest parties have been against the idea of currency union. More recently the LibDems have decided that it's not a good idea certainly in the short term.

And not a jot of those words apply to Scotland.

So why do you think them saying 'no' to the idea of CU with iScotland is them ganging up on Scotland? iScotland has claimed it will have a CU, those three leaders have simply put the people of Scotland straight by stating the consistent line they hold to the idea of CU with any country.

But hey, if your logic says that 9.3% of the UK's debts are irrefutably iScotland's , who am I to argue?

I am not going to pretend to be an expert but I am old enough to have spent British pounds in Dublin so I don't see how the idea is so ridiculous.

I seriously suggest you improve your expertise, because spending British pounds in Dublin is zero to do with anything about what a currency union means.

Leaving aside all the business arguments - millions of people cross the border between Scotland & England every year - to visit family , to attend sports events , to go to festivals etc.

Whether i am Scottish or English I would really like to think my government was trying to make this as easy as possible for me.

But when one govt is making things difficult for the other govt, what then?

This is what many of those who say they'll vote yes just don't get. As an example: the white paper says that iScotland will have different immigration rules to the rUK.

This means that, if there were open borders between England and Scotland, Scotland can be used as an open route for illegal immigration into the rUK.... and the rUK is not just going to open it's borders to anyone by allowing that, is it?

Would that be rUK being nasty to iScotland? Or would that be rUK acting in it's own interests just as iScotland would be doing with its own immigration policy?

Saying "I don't see why we just can't get along" only works if you're working from the same script. If Scotland chooses a different script it chooses the consequences of its choices too.

It's likely that many of these things will get sorted out by mutual agreement in the end, but that means Scotland gets something very different to what the white paper says - much like what you have now (but with fewer meaningful guarantees), as it happens.

You know, the thing you say is so awful that you want something different.

Whether this is accurate or not, the Perception in Scotland is that this has been an attempt to undermine the Yes campaign rather than a serious attempt to discuss the issue

O

you cannot have a serious discussion with a sovereignty campaign that believes it has the right to demand the sovereignty of other sovereign states. Edited March 29, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

if anyone is making their decision based on the propaganda of either the yes campaign or the Better Together campaign, their decision is based on a mixture of truth , lies, distortion, exaggeration & guesswork.

just like every election.

Perhaps.

But only one side is claiming parts of the sovereignty of the other as a 'right', and that's where it goes beyond lies into lunacy.